Printable View
Anyone watching it? I'm finding it rather interesting myself. 12 religious leaders, including the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Patriarch of Russia, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Ayatollah giving commentary on their lives and religious philosophy. Its starting to wind down right now, but its on CBS for any interested.
Great. CBS? I wonder what was edited out. Interesting theme though, in less it takes the oft' traveled road of the atrocities committed "in God's name."Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Alright, can we please not travel down the "Biased Source!" road, please, and just take it for what its worth, perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Anyways, for those who didn't watch it, there was generally a common theme, amongst the details. That it that religion is supposed to be peaceful, not a tool of prejudice, hatred, or fear. Even the Ayatollah agreed with the claim, saying that force should only be used in self defence. I'd say that of all the people there, though, I probably have the most admiration for the Dalai Lama. Mostly, it was because of the outright way he taught of tolerance to other religions, and how one specific religion is not neccessarily the way for every person. For him, Buddhism, but for others, it is a different religion. Also, for the fact that he deals with so many of the oppressed Tibetan people who attempt to cross the Himalayas to escape China. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting watch, and certainly better than most of what's on TV for sure.
I didn't watch this but I can tell from the panel listed in the OP that its a biased panel in the first place.
If they want to have a legitimate panel discussing such things, they would have to include people who actually believe the content of the Holy Books they claim to represent. Most or all of the panel members listed in the OP do not.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
I didn't watch this but I can tell from the panel listed in the OP that its a biased panel in the first place.
Bollox , what you mean is to have a legitimate panel it must include someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture:2thumbsup:Quote:
If they want to have a legitimate panel discussing such things, they would have to include people who actually believe the content of the Holy Books they claim to represent. Most or all of the panel members listed in the OP do not.
Umm, ok, here's the panel in total:
Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and head of the Russian Orthodox Church
Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi), a Hindu spiritual leader
Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church
The Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists
Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a prominent Shi'ite Muslim leader
Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and President of the Lutheran World Federation
Michihisa Kitashirakawa, Jingu Daiguji (High Priest) of the Shinto Grand Shrine of Ise
Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel
Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention
Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, Sheikh of Al-Azhar and a prominent Sunni Muslim leader
Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar of the Akal Takht, the Sikhs' highest authority
Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England
Your point is taken in context to the reply Tribes. However having someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture would have merit given that the current world climate affords these types a place at the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
If were going to have a panel of so called experts and then offer it up as some baramoter of gods will, were going to have to include everyone. Exclusion limits the credability of the outcome. Im not saying your advocating exclusion, Im just pushing this discussion a bit further along. :wiseguy:
Well, I imagine that the creators would might have had a wee bit of difficulty in getting an interview with Osama Bin Laden. I hear he's really quite busy these days.~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Odin
isnt there another thread here about an web chat with one of the head nuts in al queda? Point is the list of names given so far while impressive to some its really not representative of how the religions have progressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Somewhere along the line someone in each religion got the crazy notion that Gods will was subject to debate and interpretation. Some even argue that was the original intent of the organizations at the start to have free will debate.
If thats the case then the representative spectrum must be broadened. You have 1 person who represents sunni's on the list(as an example) thats hardly representative of the entire branch of the faith.
However to put it in perspective you never claim its about faiths, you state that its really a discussion about thier lives. So in that sense I've been headed off at the path and I cant bring it too an overall discussion (which is highly defenseable). Ah well, religion is such a sexy topic you never know what fish you might catch once you cast your line. :drama2:
All wearing their favourite skirts, hats and propaganda cliches, no doubt. God, what a zoo. Imagine having to interview that whole bunch without laughing out loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
https://i123.photobucket.com/albums/...AAL/05_fsm.jpg
obviously there is a very important religion missing.
so it is in his noodley name that i advocate we add the speaker for the great pasta diety to the list.
here is our holiness now...
https://i123.photobucket.com/albums/...L/23294262.jpg
is this gonna be another God bashing thread?
It depends on what god writes . If the posts are nonsense they will probably get bashed , if not then no .Quote:
is this gonna be another God bashing thread?
I eagerly await a post to see if it deserves bashing , but as of yet I havn't seen god getting bashed on this forum since I havn't read any of the posts .
Firstly: we could bash God only if he existed, which he does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Secondly, no one has bashed the name of 'God' in this forum since I first came here years ago.
Thirdly, believers are bashed all the time, and by the dozen. They ask for it because they pretend to speak, vote, kill and die on behalf of a higher authority that isn't.
:juggle2:
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
(yes, that's all it deserves)
to be a God bashing threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
1st- you say he doesnt exist, but provide no proof. Something atheist require ALL the time....well where is it now? or do you just like to bash like the many atheists serving mankind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
2nd- well where have you been? certainly took a vacation the 2nd up until now 'all those years ago'
3rd-aw bashed all the time?, oh ya by the atheists who get protected by the masses because they are the small minority....
mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.
oh and religion requires FAITH (try and disprove that) not science which is INCOMPATIBLE with religion, but since you know so much enlighten us poor faithful.
This thread really has potential now, adrian please take up the cross on this one (pun intended) :thumbsup:
I thought atheists argued in packs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
I wouldnt know, Im not an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
I meant no disrespect to Adrian. His anti-religion rant sounded more like a sermon. Quite the irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Edit: Maybe that was the point. He is almost on par with Louis in his verbal judo, just not quite as witty, more like a pretentious literary critic (in a non-native language, which still makes it impressive), but I digress .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.
:quiet:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Errrrrrrr.....
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.
hmm was it the otherwise part?
I just want to say I support what Odin said, please respond Adrian so we can get thislockedsolved really quick anddirtydecisive. :juggle2:
God can not exist if and when you define God as a real (hence meaningful) entity in any way. As soon as you attribute concrete characteristics to God, he/she becomes absurd, hence non-existent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Of course you can define God as 'love' or 'unfathomable' or 'everything' or something vague like that. In which case talking of God becomes mere wordplay and meaningless. And in which case neither you nor I can talk about him (cf. Wittgenstein).
Believers are free and in any way entitled to their beliefs, but they are absurd. The world's Gods have been given a real dressing down by science. All concrete characterics that were once attributed to them, have been rejected. No God created man and the earth. No God wrote holy books. No God ever unleashes lightning and thunder. And no God channels his deepest throughts through Shirley MacLaine.
That's why atheists have organised gatherings every Sunday where they listen to preachers, go around knocking on doors in groups trying to convert people etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Oh hold on. All this pack behaviour is actually demonstrated by the religious. You'll find most atheists are actually relatively individualistic about their views.
So believing in a force greater than ourselves automatically makes us non-existent? At least be consistent in your defintions when making points. And please, don't be a hypocrite, I'm not buying your "acceptance" of believer's faith, that was barely even disguised disgust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
You fail to prove why God as a 'real' entity is absurd. Please, tell me how an omnipotent force has been proven false.
Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that all religions are about bowing down and worshipping an omnipotent force. That is wrong.
Another issue is that the whole idea of religion is generally that it is based in faith, which is not neccessarily based on proveable things.
Furthermore, you seem to be quite disdainful of any kind of religions concepts. However, then by what concept do we define moral and ethical treatment of others? Do we go purely on law of the jungle? Or do we act well to other people because its the RIGHT THING TO DO? Nearly all religions have issued some kind of moral conduct for people, and more often than not, said conduct is generally for the benefit of society. Judaism/Christianity have the 10 commandments, Islam has the 5 pillars, Buddhism has the eightfold path, etc...I think your unfairly attributing all things negative in the world to religion when, in fact, many of the problems in the world instead rise from human weakness instead.
Also, please tell me this: what created the universe? And don't tell me the big bang, because, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe initially was the size of one somethingth the size of an atom, and expanded from there. It fails to explain how the one somethingth the size of an atom came to existence, at least from every time I've heard it explained to me.
The most common attack atheists use is 'scientific' proof, BUT, as God is is purely faith based there is NO scientific argument that can disprove him. Attributing concrete proof,well, ah but the same can be said for evolution or big bang, but because it is associated with science it becomes real, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Religion exists beyond the realm of science, totaly different complete type of thought for both which really if anyone thought about it they will never co-exist, bringing certain people not open to other possible truths so they question with-->
-where is He?... I like to think in Heaven, simple but not enough for those that must see. oh well...-->
-<t--then where is Heaven?...I'd like to think it is another plain of existence only reachable thru death. But now I'm getting too preachy arent I?
And atheists dont like preachy so they come up with-->
-If I cant see him, or talk to him, touch it, then He cant be real... well if they knew there is no possible way to scientificaly prove God then how could they disprove Him in the first place?
And how do you know God doesnt channel his thoughts thru shirly? But hey its not every day God speaks to someone (or its that they dont say anything for the fear of being an outcast)
nice arguments tho
@productivity- sigh.. didnt you see atheists coming in packs to disprove God in the last God debate and NOW?!?!!?
Amazingly there can be more than one atheist on a forum. Even more amazingly, on questions of god, they seem to agree. ~:shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
*note heavy sarcasm present in this post. Seriously, if you don't like more than one person attacking your arguments and ideas, don't come to a relatively secular discussion forum for discussions of religion. If you don't want to be challenged, stick to faith based message boards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was as I've stated it, and that is all.
To give further context to my previous post; one simple way to know if a message is truly Christian or not is if it is telling the secular humanist world (which is the world at large) what it wants to hear. If it is telling the secular humanist world what it wants to hear, then it is not a Christian message. Jesus said that the world would hate his followers just as it hated him. Because he told the world that what it does is evil, and they were not interested in hearing that. Jesus' message was extremely offensive to the secular humanists of his day. Those of his followers who are not telling a message that is equally offensive to the secular humanists of today - aka the world in general - are definitely not following the teachings of Jesus, nor are they qualified to represent him.
Since making my previous post in this thread, I had come across an article of how the people on the panel of the program were chosen, and one of the largest factors was "popularity". That right there is a major red flag to know right off the bat that the panel was illegitimate.
Clearly, the panel in the program discussed in this thread was cherrypicked to comprise of people who were, for the most part, going to promote a secular humanist agenda despite their self-appointed religious misnomer titles, and tell the world exactly what it wants to hear (and those people are popular precisely for that reason). This was done in the stead of a legitimate qualification to represent religious views, which would be because they are knowledgable of and believe in the content that dictates what their religion is.
In regards to the comments such as "Bin Laden is busy so he couldn't be included": there are plenty of non-terrorist people who would give a qualified, accurate representation of their religion which would offend the audience, but were obviously excluded for the sake of telling the audience what it wants to hear even if it does not truly represent the religions at all. The program makers could easily have found and included such panelists if they had the least bit of interest in the truth.
Ah bollox once again , we have been through that interpretation of yours before nav and it is unfortunately utter crap .:yes:Quote:
To give further context to my previous post.........some nonsense
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: well I would say unbloodybelievable tripe , but then I remembered who it was who wrote it :dizzy2:Quote:
Clearly, the panel in the program discussed in this thread was cherrypicked to comprise of people who were, for the most part, going to promote a secular humanist agenda despite their self-appointed religious misnomer titles, and tell the world exactly what it wants to hear (and those people are popular precisely for that reason). This was done in the stead of a legitimate qualification to represent religious views, which would be because they are knowledgable of and believe in the content that dictates what their religion is.
You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Or maybe what I wrote eludes you because my reasoning is from semantics, not experimental science, and you are used to the standard atheist claim that demands scientific proof. I do not demand scientific proof. All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Since you must have felt that one coming, you flee into vagueness. You claim that God's existence is outside the realm of perception, yet simultaneously you claim that you perceive Him. That, too, is nonsensical.
Basically, you seem to adhere to one of the many nonsense definitions I mentioned above: God is 'love' or 'something out there' or 'everything we don't know'. How can 'everything we don't know' have written a book? And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?
'something out there' likes him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Or maybe God is Osama, since Osama is somehow beyond our perception, too. :sneaky:Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMe
Hmm, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, and hence why you fail to respond to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Anyways, a couple of things. First of all, I think you're being a tad hostile about this whole issue, considering you seem to believe that people are free to believe what they want.:juggle2: Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in your points. Coming up with a concrete person in a concrete place would be the only way to scientifically prove any existence of god. Furthermore, I feel you're really missing the ball in terms of what the whole point of religion is all about. It isn't about proving everything to non-believers. Generally speaking, religion is a way in which humans seek to overcome suffering and achieve lasting peace. It isn't about scientific formulae or historical events, persay. Its about the message which the religion contains.
Now, as to "where" God exists? Well, obviously, I can't give you any place which we can physically touch. It is, as Boyar stated, a sort of different plane of existence, which is beyond our reach so long as our souls are bound to earth. Now, I'm sure you're going to go on another rant about how non-sensical I'm being, but once again, you'll once again be missing the point that religion is based on faith, not science, so I fear that this thread will quickly go nowhere.
Such ways and messages are not confined to religion. They don't require a God. If you are disinclined to talk about your God, please just say so, instead of conjuring up ever new definitions of what the real issue is.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
This is what religion has come to in the yearQuote:
It is, as Boyar stated, a sort of different plane of existence, which is beyond our reach so long as our souls are bound to earth.
2007: we are treated to views of an undefined 'something', a sort of existential blob, located in a 'sort of different plane of existence'. And we haven't even touched on the presumed miracles, the holy books, avatars, smitings, or revelations in burning bushes.
Like I said, as soon as believers are forced to become concrete and show their cards, as it were, what you get is gobbledygook. Faith-based gobbledygook, but gobbledygook all the same.
I Enjoy debating with you Adrian, so here we go. You want a definition of God? Well I've been reading Boethius today so I'll take a crack at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
God is the First Cause, the Prime Good, from which everything has its genesis. By this definition to say "God created man" is not non-sensical because you are not saying he actually sculpted a little man out of clay and sneezed on him.
I think it's fair to say that God is too great to be comprehended by man, rather like man is too big to be comprehended by an ant, or the curve of the Earth is too big to actually comprehend whilst it is under foot.
It seems to me you reject God because you cannot explain or understand him, but by that token evolution, electricity, the forging of iron and bronze, should all have been rejected in their time also as nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I read what you wrote. You want concrete proof of something that can be found thru piety and spirituality, obviously you have none of these, so you will always use the same argument to find the connection of (scientific) proof, and God, which I've stated before has no connection.
And dont claim what I've said when I never wrote it, and please re-read what I wrote if not, here's as summary.
God and your (logic, thus in common with science) proof cannot co-exist nor even come close to finding your answers because everyone fails to see that God cannot be found thru formula, the completely different science (which once again canNOT be used to find God), but thru faith, piety, and spirituality, in fact just go to church. Oh and did you know the book was basicaly, divine rules, some history, bibliography, and divine intervention? there ya go I just summed it up for ya .
And how do YOU know that Osama isnt already dead and someone took his place? heres your chance to find concrete proof.
Do note that Adrian II is not demanding scientific proof here. Instead, he's sending out a challenge for the believers to prove God philosophically. Semantics, ideas, concepts, logics, debates and discussions on theoretical and perhaps theological grounds; all those tools of the mind not necessarily existing in the physical universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
To think of what he's demanding, think of the works of Thomas Aquinas and the like, where men try to "prove" God by referring to the necessity of God existing. Adrian is saying that he will, using the same tools, prove you (and these people?) wrong.
And before you chime in, note also that he made clear that he thinks hiding behind "faith" to "explain" everything about the Divine is intellectually dishonest. It's particularly suspicious if the "incomprehensible" somehow also have recognizable (and thus comprehensible) physical manifestations: Holy Texts, sites of worship, rites and traditions, morals and ethics, etc.
Me, I'll keep my opinion to myself, though I do like reading a God debate or two when people actually say something new.
Ah philosiphy, you could've just said that you know (Adrian)...
Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible? much better than arguing where no one will accept the others point.
The Bible doesn't prove God philosophically...Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
It doesn't even make an attempt. :book:
I wonder if Pindar's old thread is still around? That'd be an example of what Adrian wants. And what I want to read I guess, if I can understand what they're saying (lol). ~:)
Oh God is love, He is this, He is that, reason for the season...Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
is that it (is that what ur askin' for?) cuz its gotta be there somewhere, how much have you read?
Cossack why didn't you go up and work on the big dig ?Quote:
Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible?
You could've made big money up ther digging someone else a big hole , here you done dig yourself into a pit for free .
So \now then Cossack what do you want to tel me about the bible and which bible is it you want to tell me about .
It is after all the absolute truth so there must onlybe one version:idea2:
are you drunk?:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
maybe you'll make more sense then usual. I didnt say "read the bible because it is all powerful and people should follow it to the extreme"
I just said if you want to --know-- more about God why not go to church or read the bible instead of askin' me? I was jus' here arguin' with Adrian over the -existence- of God.
But if you must know its title is "The New American Bible"(I'm Catholic). And I would like to talk to you about, Proverbs18, chp18, line 2
"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"
Because it is unknown whether what the bible states is true or false nor can church-going provide us with the truth. It is mostly still merely based on belief which does not equal or lead to truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
For the second bolding: I do not mean to offend; that bolded phrase seems to apply to you. And it seems to be applicable to many who believe in God and/or take the bible seriously.
So far, I have no choice but to favour Adrian's words. And by the way, since it occurred to me once again -- the mention of Pindar's post(s) -- I am curious what he had to say. I might have seen it already though... I think I have but it is mostly forgotten.
Thing is we can be more or less CERTAIN about the physical reality. Logic, science, and so on, are true and/or logically consistent and fair. What is faith, what is belief, what is religion? We just believe in "something" and be done with it? Try to use illogical reasoning to prove points? Pfff, not me, and any other rational person should not either. There are good reasons why logic exists and one of them is that it can provide clear unbiased correct thought, premises and conclusions, and so on, all done within the logical "objective" realm.
If you stand before a gunman who wields a submachine gun at close range and he shoots to hit you but he misses wasting the whole magazine, would you call this a miracle of God? Would you call this d'vine intervention? If yes, then why? You would base it on your belief? Belief # Truth.
Well obviously Bijo, you did not have to point out which side you're taking as we all already know~D
So its untrue whether the bible states is true or false... Bijo a seriously doubt a man of your 'belief' actually read the bible. Is it untrue that the Assyrians attacked Israel? or the Babylonians? Or the life of Solomon he never existed? all these the bible mentions (so solomon talked to God, meaning he's is false? well our last pope John Paul II claimed to have spoke with God, does that mean he never existed?).
And I understand why atheists dont believe in God, I thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least 1 identifiable thing that makes it real and true, thats why I found out God exists thru religion not science and those will never co-exist. And I dont believe God is any faker then, nor now.
And if all bullets missed in your last question? I would think its a miracle, anybody would.
Yes amazed that you found that peice of wisdom in the bible?
confucius say "~D "
What? no, what is claimed is that - though these people did exist - the "fact" that they talked to God is a lie. Further - I can't think of any reason why the Pope would lie about talking to God... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
You clearly don't understand why Atheists don't believe in God. It is because they don't believe in God. Each Atheist has their own individual reasons as to why this is. Can you clarify your statement "everything... has at least 1 identifiably thing that makes it real and true". That doesn't seem to prove anything at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Also, I would think that science could give us far more than Religion ever could. It certainly has in the past.
Whether you believe in God or not seems almost hardwired, actually. Atheists tend to be people without faith. I.e. they need some form of proof, they are inherently intellectual and logical. Some are also control freaks, they can't let go of the illusion that they control their own destiny.
At the end of the day belief in God ignores proof and in fact Augustine, Boethius and Aquinus all base their arguements on the precondition that God exists, they even have the grace to admit it sometimes.
Any arguement used to prove the existence of God can be turned around and used to disprove His existence, but you can then turn the arguement around again.
So the scales are balanced. Further, much of Christian catholic orthodoxy post-dates the apostles, let alone Jesus. The Bible itself comes from what the far-right call the "Early post-Apostolic".
So what are you looking for Adrian, Bijo, et al? A crutch to support faith?
There isn't one unfortunately.
It is illogical. You are making statements as if they are true. You thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least one identifiable thing making it true? That is how you discovered God exists? Through religion? It does not compute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Also, let me remind you that religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time: they exist(ed) simultaneously.
The question is "IS it a miracle from God?" The only choices are "Yes" and "No", and then the most reasonable answer would be "No". It doesn't matter what you think -- or anyone thinks -- of it. IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain?Quote:
And if all bullets missed in your last question? I would think its a miracle, anybody would.
And while I'm at it, let me kindly ask you a question. Would you like to believe in this God who allows evil? A God who allows pain, suffering, torment, hunger, starvation, conflict, and so on? Well, you could. Let me tell you that IF you believe in Him, it would make much sense to HATE Him as well.
And to Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I am not necessarily looking for that (a crutch to support faith). I merely wish to point out it is irrational to believe in God and it is foolish (or insert another fitting word) to praise Him and/or even LOVE Him.
There were many times people told me they loved God and that they can sense His presence. How can they love God for allowing evil to exist and for probably being evil Himself? And how are they so certain that what they "feel" or "sense" is actually God the allpowerful divine entity they believe in whose existence is still uncertain?
I say believe what you want, but be aware that -- again -- BELIEF # TRUTH.
Thays not how I discovered God, I said that everything in the universe can be identified etc. God cannot be scientificaly indentified etc. maybe thats why athiests are atheists... 'cause they want scientific proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Yes it is a miracle from God IMO.
Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he? but its always the evil that counts?:inquisitive:
see that is what I mean about that little piece of wisdom I showed you. You dont want to UNDERSTAND why people believe in God, but just show why YOU (and other athiest) dont. I'm tellin' you just go to church and find some understanding about why we believe and be open to other possible truths instead of staying with one forever.
Wheres Adrain? oh well.... and am I the only one of the few here that defends religion?
Yes it does. How do you identify grass? touch. How do you identify light? sight. etc even proven thru cause and effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I distinctly remember something about a debate on "Does God exist?" coming our way...
What is status on this one?
There are some pointers in this thread for whoever takes up the atheist argument...
Alright, I'm with you so far, but how did this help you to find God? Surely it would persuade you otherwise because there is nothing tangible about any God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
That's not how you discovered God? Then why did you state it in that post I replied to before? Could it be a lack of formulation skill? Are you now quickly trying to correct it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Illogical. When a person says 'something IS....' he is making a claim as if he would be objective, factual, and logical. If it is your OPINION/BELIEF then don't use the construction 'X = ....' but rather make it like... "I believe the case to be..." or "I opine that...." or "I believe that..."Quote:
Yes it is a miracle from God IMO.
It is as if you state your opinion or b'lief and simultaneously state it is FACT. Your phrase could've been less misleading if you put the 'IMO' first but even then....
In any case, again, the question remains: "IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain while disregarding beliefs and/or opinions?" Just provide an objective answer. You would find that the most likely answer would be "I don't know." or something like that. And why would it be that? Because you simply don't know.
First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him.Quote:
Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he? but its always the evil that counts?:inquisitive:
He is believed to be allpowerful, almighty, to have ultimate power and control. If this is true, why did He not create the perfect world? For Christ's sake, He's God! GOD! If He has/had ultimate power, He could've made everything perfect, peaceful, and so on, but noooooo.... apparantly He chose evil. THAT is a damn good reason to HATE Him if one believes in Him.
You are stating I am an atheist? You are stating I don't understand why they believe in God? You don't know much of me. I have seen **** from different sides. Don't put words into my mouth. Looks like sensational talk to me.Quote:
see that is what I mean about that little piece of wisdom I showed you. You dont want to UNDERSTAND why people believe in God, but just show why YOU (and other athiest) dont. I'm tellin' you just go to church and find some understanding about why we believe and be open to other possible truths instead of staying with one forever.
Rather than respond directly I'd like to draw your attention back to your own conclusions. You say it is irrational to believe in God, fine, I would agree with that, but rationallity and logic are human constructs. It's not rational or logical to fall in love either but I'd rather be in love with someone before I married her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
All your examples are dependant on your perception of good and evil, you also make concrete claims that are no more supportable than those make by Christians or Muslims.
Here's a big hole in your arguement: you say the existence of God is uncertain, I say it isn't.
The whole thing grinds to a halt at that point, anyway.
You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.
Exactly why these sort of debates have a very, very high tendency to go absolutely NOWHERE. Faith is faith, and its all based on each person's perspective. Whether that faith is in science or logic or rhetoric or religion or whatever, its usually very difficult to sway it in an online forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Why did you not reply to my previous post? Why direct my attention to an old post?
You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?Quote:
Here's a big hole in your arguement: you say the existence of God is uncertain, I say it isn't.
Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain reality. Based on reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:Quote:
You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.
Fixed that for you.:yes: The role of science is to help us understand the surrounding universe, not to make absolute statements, like religious writings tend to do sometimes, which takes away their scientific value. Why is it so hard to part realm of science and parts of universe that science cant proof or disapprove from each other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Science should be science and religion be religion. Unfortunately to some religion can become science and science become an religion, which in my humble view should be avoided at all cost.
1st yes lack of re'reading what I wrote, thus many grammar errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
2nd yes I 'believe' it to be factual (miracle from God, cant a christian do that?). Just like I 'believe' 1+1=2.
3rd "First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him."~:rolleyes: did I say that? Yeah why not creat the perfect world? maybe it was perfect before adam and eve ate the apple and caused us to have original sin....(if you get to talk from a religious point of view to explain your argument ie. "He could've made everything perfect" so can I, with the adam and eve thing ~D )
4th um YES I'm stating your an atheist, hmm if you find it illogical to believe in God then I guess you DONT!!! this is pretty much all I have to know of you to type this:yes:
Our esteemed colleague Pindar put forward a very interesting logical proof of God (or at least, a necessary being) which confounded most of us who challenged him. Sadly, neither can I find the thread nor have we heard from him for some while - but I have found a version of the proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
A contingent being exists (a contingent being is such that if it exists, it can not-exist).
This contingent being has a cause or explanation of its existence.
The cause or explanation of its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot cause or explain the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being which, if it exists, cannot not exist) exists.
Now, I'm not a logician like Pindar, but I found it very elegant and tough to dismiss. On further reading, I discovered Kant (among others) framed a rebuttal, but it's still elegant.
scratch my last argument as it lost the meaning of my ealier arguments
It's no easier when your interlocuter is a pretty girl in a coffe bar, she won.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
I thought that you might appreciate that your own conclusions can be turned on their heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Congratulations on completely and utterly missing the point. I agree that belief in God is not rational but given that rationality is inherently a human concept and really nothing more than a concept it is as flawed as faith. I'm not too keen on rationality as a yardstick for that reason, just because it's rational doesn't mean it's right.Quote:
You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.
I can't and I don't need to. I'm okay with not being able to prove it because I know it's true, no I can't why explain to you either.Quote:
Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?
As I said, logic is a bit crap. Try to prove God you get a paradox, try to disprove Him and you get a paradox.
Live with it, you'll be happier and you might live longer.
Newton's "Laws" of Physics seem mathematically sound, don't they? Oh, wait, they just look right, they're actually wrong when you get down to the atomic level. Your faith in science is the same as my faith in religion, you're just as biased as I am.Quote:
Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain reality. Based on reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:
You should learn to live with that as well, just like Dawkins should.
Belief, schmelief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
No, I stated it in response to your phrase "Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he?"Quote:
3rd "First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him."~:rolleyes: did I say that? Yeah why not creat the perfect world? maybe it was perfect before adam and eve ate the apple and caused us to have original sin....(if you get to talk from a religious point of view to explain your argument ie. "He could've made everything perfect" so can I, with the adam and eve thing ~D )
You mean... GOD created imperfect humans in the first place who then messed things up? Great going, God. Even with all Your ultimate powers you manage(d) to **** up.
That first phrase looks too sensational to me. Please refrain from that in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph
You are saying rationality is as flawed as faith? You are forgetting some important things, though, which seem necessary to repeat: faith is blind and not critical as it does not observe fairly; rationality does observe fairly and is minimally not as blind as faith. Regard simple everyday examples you encounter and you have your proof. Rationality more or less does not go around making claims like a bunch of madmen. At least it can admit it does not know or know, while belief is just.... belief.
No, you DO NOT know if it's true. You just believe it to be true.Quote:
I can't and I don't need to. I'm okay with not being able to prove it because I know it's true, no I can't why explain to you either.
To Kage:
What matters is that it is logically consistent. It works. Water starts boiling at some point due to certain rules of physics/nature. It has been discovered, it has been recorded, etc. And so there are many examples available. You observe and make proper conclusions and systems that are TRUE. These true correct findings are later redone consistently. The argument that it is ALL subjective is useless. Try believing you won't fall and get seriously injured when you jump off a high cliff and there's no safety at all, then jump. You will get injured or even die because the rules of nature/physics are like that. I welcome anyone to try and believe in something that doesn't make sense and then perform the action and observe the outcome. Let yourself get hit by a bus driving at highspeed... what do you think the result would be?
To BG:
Yes, I thought it was something in that direction.
Dont blame God for your misfortunes. Your fellow man AND yourself has caused misfortune. God gave you and you still have the power to do good, but with you God has to do everything, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
And I can tell you're getting angry, because your points arent getting the better? ...and blame evil inthe world on God, remember God isnt evil, its humans, every misfortune that has happened, WE did it (to better answer your last thread doubting God).
Besides these arguments are bringing dowm my credibilty and making me sound like a preacher than a debater. :crowngrin:
The topic is God, not man alone. The argument stays. And you are making quick assumptions that I am blaming God for my SUPPOSED misfortunes. Refrain from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
That is just.... your perception.Quote:
And I can tell you're getting angry, because your points arent getting the better? ...and blame evil inthe world on God, remember God isnt evil, its humans, every misfortune that has happened, WE did it (to better answer your last thread doubting God).
You are forgetting an important thing once more: God is supposedly the almighty allpowerful one; if man is evil it is because God -- who has ultimate supreme power, 'cause, like... it's GOD, you know -- made man like that in the first place. What is so difficult to understand about it? Don't you WANT to understand?
You already looked like a preacher, illogical one :laugh4:Quote:
Besides these arguments are bringing dowm my credibilty and making me sound like a preacher than a debater. :crowngrin:
Since it seems you cannot overthrow my arguments, and since you use emotionally loaded sensational language, and irrelevant false observations about my person, and using illogic, our discussion ceases at once. -3 for you on my list.
You are making the mistake of ascribing percieved evil to God. You are judging some actions as evil, and therefore others as good presumabely. So you are making a judgement. Being human your judgement is obviously flawed because humans are far from perfect. So since you are making the judgement the question arises, "Are you right about what is good and what is evil?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
You may be wrong, there may be no evil save what you percieve to be evil. Humans are responsible for their own actions, at that point the question becomes why does God allow evil.
The usual answer is that God allows us to make our own mistakes just like any parent. That's just another flawed human arguement though, you can choose to take it or leave it.
Personal attacks don't help your own case nor does laughing at people.Quote:
You already looked like a preacher, illogical one :laugh4:
Since it seems you cannot overthrow my arguments, and since you use emotionally loaded sensational language, and irrelevant false observations about my person, and using illogic, our discussion ceases at once. -3 for you on my list.
Lets not over simplify matters. So are you saying that what you cant observe is irrelevant and thus does not exist? Human perception is very limited. For example there are lot of very low and high frequencies that human ear cant register, still while you cant register those frequencies, the sounds can have effect on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
You cant witness the dance of atoms with your eyes, but still whole universe is built of them.
Science has helped us understand these phenomenas and in the future there is little doubt it will reveal more and more about the universe to us. Science is not ready, its not complete like you seem to argue. What you are saying is that because right now science cant prove or disprove your perception of God, there fore God cant exist. Why so? What do we know about God as humans?
We only have the word God and our perception what this word is supposed to mean. I think what lead to many scientist to make breakthroughs was that they believed on phenomenas before they could prove them to be accurate. By dismissing fate as irrelevant we will only stagnate ourselves and thus became irrelevant ourselves. I believe that there is not and will not be one moment when we know everything and its futile to think that there ever will be, thus belief and fate on things that we cant perceive is very important for us to develop.
Only if you desist in calling me a fool, or my beliefs foolish. This:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
didn't help your case either. You should also stop using the laughing smiley if you want to avoid offending people.Quote:
Belief, schmelief.
Rationallity is flawed in a different way I'll grant you. It's still flawed, you place the burdan of proof on the theists, yet atheism is the new belief. You challenge ancient established belief and then say the burdan of proof lies on my side, not yours. Is that rational? Rationality is a human concept, not an inherrent truth. You make claims based on rationality as though that inherrently made them correct.Quote:
You are saying rationality is as flawed as faith? You are forgetting some important things, though, which seem necessary to repeat: faith is blind and not critical as it does not observe fairly; rationality does observe fairly and is minimally not as blind as faith. Regard simple everyday examples you encounter and you have your proof. Rationality more or less does not go around making claims like a bunch of madmen. At least it can admit it does not know or know, while belief is just.... belief.
Was it rational for Newton to claim that gravity existed before he had proved it? Was it rational for Pastur to claim that boiling milk would preserve it?
Based on the evidence they began with, prevailing scientific opinion etc. arguably it wasn't. Rational does not equal right.
You've also called me a madman here, not only is that another attack by proxy it is also merely another perception, even today if you walk into a room in parts of the world you will be deemed "mad" or even possessed for espousing atheism.
You do not know my beliefs are foolish, you just believe they are foolish. You are increasingly resorting to persoanl attacks and complaints obout your adversaies' posts.Quote:
No, you DO NOT know if it's true. You just believe it to be true.
Your arguement is as weak and unsupportable as mine, nor does the burdan of proof necessarily lie with me. In fact, if the Bible were any other historical text, or the existence of God were any other theory the burdan of proof would lie on you.
While you can disprove certain elements of the Bible, and prove that others do not exactly fit the available facts there is, for example, no way for you to prove Jesus did not walk on water.
You can prove no one living now can do it but Jesus claimed to be unique and unlike anyone living now, so that doesn't constitute any form of proof.
I'll give you a definition and prove you wrong in one go: I declare you God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
There is, of course, no way that you can prove to me that you are not God. Hence, believe in God is not illogical and the atheist pack in this thread has failed. And unless the Christians can prove that Adrian isn't God they have failed too, and their worship of the Biblical God must be considered idolatry.
I worship Thee, Adrian, divine Master of Heaven and Earth. Blessed be Thy name. Bow, sinners, to your new God. http://matousmileys.free.fr/anbet2.gif
If we can get the "Does God exist?" debate going, I shall prove that God exists and that God is a personal creator.
I guess this thread had a sudden death...
:thumbsdown:
Just like God! MUHAHAHA :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
sorry
You would just as soon declare me a pompous, arrogant piss, you Gallic whippersnapper, you. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The issue here is that God can only be defined in one of two ways. Either as an entity beyond the grasp of human reason, in which case it can be subject to no proposition and is therefore heuristically empty. Or as an entity that is within the grasp of human reason, in which case it is subject to propositions that can be tested and will be refuted because, largely speaking, 'the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference' (Richard Dawkins).
Dawkins has not produced a concrete arguement against God, he is also and atheist and anti-deist who is opposed to existence of God because he sees God as a negative influence. This in itself is interesting because that suggests he see God as evil, a concept he proffesses not to recognise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
He has become as entrenched as a Southern-Baptist fruitcake preacher.
Now, two things:
1. God is ultimately responsible for the Big Bang. Can you refute this?
2. I think you are incorrect because "God" falls into the same catagory as love. Love is not within human comprehension (I can't believe I'm using the clichè), we feel it, but we can't actually explain it. Dawkins might try to break it down into evolution and endorphins but that's just, lust euthoria etc. He has no way to explain why two people will choose to spend their lives together, in defiance of the biological imperative.
God is imherently outside the physical world, like love, and therefore beyond scientific testing.
As a final point, I have yet to see a proposition about God actually refuted.
Can we drop all the references to "love"? There is no magic or mystery to the emotion. Science (which describes but does NOT explain) continues to improve our understanding of that emotion. Comparing "love" to the singularity or the dimensions which supposedly sparked it makes me :rolleyes2:.
If you want proof of God's existence learn his laws, the ones revealed by science.
I agree it's a tired arguement but I don't recall science expalining love, passion, lust, attraction yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I don't believe they amount to love.
Correct. I disagree with both tone and content of his latest book, which is counterproductive. But he is right about the issue I quoted him on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Is that meant to be a definition? Cause I don't think it is. Like I said, I can only discuss propositions concerning God if you define God for me.Quote:
1. God is ultimately responsible for the Big Bang. Can you refute this?
The definition 'God is love' is just obscure language. It defines one vague entity by equating it to another vague entity. I mean, is 'love' ultimately responsible for the Big Bang?..Quote:
2. I think you are incorrect because "God" falls into the same catagory as love. Love is not within human comprehension (I can't believe I'm using the clichè), we feel it, but we can't actually explain it.
The word 'love' does not refer to a clearly defined entity. It is shorthand for a collection of human experiences. Religious experiences may constitute another such collection, referred to with the semantic shorthand 'God'. But that does not mean that it refers to a reality outside the experiences.
Elsewhere in your post, you define God as something 'inherently outside the physical world', which means that it does not exist. Otherwise, the words that you use no longer mean anything. I don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing that, by definition, does not exist.
By the way, a God that has created the physical world can not be 'inherently outside the physical world'. That, too, is gobbledigook, if I may be so bold.
And definitions must not be obscure or circular.
I suppose you have a problem with quantum physics then. :book: Did you know that 'strange' is a scientific term?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Yes, and it is strictly defined. Scientists work that way. They observe a phenomenon and give it a label. The label could be 'X', but since scientistst are mostly repressed romantics they prefer funnier names, sometimes even the names of their spouses. Calling a meteorite 'Maria', for instance, does not really imply that it is female...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Thankyou, you know, he would have written almost the same book if he was a theist. I have to be honest, I don't believe the universe, or hummanity for that matter, is without an inherrrent justice but that's really another topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Well "creator of the universe" would be a definition. "God is love" though is more a description. Boethius wrote on this, God is "love" or "justice" because he is these things in the very essence of his being, he embodies them, rather than having the charactaristic of them.Quote:
Is that meant to be a definition? Cause I don't think it is. Like I said, I can only discuss propositions concerning God if you define God for me.The definition 'God is love' is just obscure language. It defines one vague entity by equating it to another vague entity. I mean, is 'love' ultimately responsible for the Big Bang?..
So, my definition would be ancient, "God is the First Cause."
That does not mean that it does not refer to something outside the experiences. Do I exist beyond my words written here? Do you?Quote:
The word 'love' does not refer to a clearly defined entity. It is shorthand for a collection of human experiences. Religious experiences may constitute another such collection, referred to with the semantic shorthand 'God'. But that does not mean that it refers to a reality outside the experiences.
Ok, well in that sense God does not exist, He is nowhere, but everywhere because He is in all things, while being in no one thing. He does not exist as a concrete being within our physical reality but his influence is manifest everywhere.Quote:
Elsewhere in your post, you define God as something 'inherently outside the physical world', which means that it does not exist. Otherwise, the words that you use no longer mean anything. I don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing that, by definition, does not exist.
Stepped into a pretty obvious trap there. If he's God he doesn't follow your rules, because he's all powerful. See, if he exists then he can do whatever he likes, he can halve the speed of light should he so choose. Only if you except that he does not exist does he become subject to rules and criticism.Quote:
By the way, a God that has created the physical world can not be 'inherently outside the physical world'. That, too, is gobbledigook, if I may be so bold.
See above, you cannot place requirements on the existence of your creator.Quote:
And definitions must not be obscure or circular.
Yes, I realise everything I have just written is dependant on the existence of God, but everything you write is dependant on Him not existing.